Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited May 19, 2022, 12:24 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

$2 million Hoosier Lottery winner has to give ex-wife $50,000

Apr 24, 2014, 11:48 am

Share this news story on Facebook
Tweet this news story on Twitter
Indiana LotteryIndiana Lottery: $2 million Hoosier Lottery winner has to give ex-wife $50,000Rating:

A man who won $2 million in the Hoosier Lottery while separated from his wife has to give her only 2.5 percent of the winnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision upholds a 2012 Allen Superior Court ruling in which Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda, $10,000 each year for five years from the money he won on a scratch-off ticket in 2011.

The couple married in February 2002. They separated in March 2006, but neither filed for legal separation or divorce at the time.

"During the next six years," the court order said, "the couple spoke only two or three times, never commingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals."

In January 2011, Carrillo Perez won the $2 million. That March he filed for divorce. It was granted June 19, 2012.

After Carrillo Perez won the lottery, his estranged wife wanted a share of it, said Fort Wayne attorney Mark C. Chambers, who represented Carrillo Perez. He said Vidrios Zepeda initially asked for $1.4 million.

"The interesting thing for us was that the parties were separated physically, but they didn't file for divorce," Chambers said. "In the legal scheme, they were still married and the assets they accrued under standard divorce law would belong to both of them, and the presumption would be that they would be split 50-50.

"But this case was unique. When they split up, the wife took everything, and there was almost no contact for nearly six years until Jose won the lottery."

In ruling that Vidrios Zepeda was not entitled to an equal split of the marital assets, including the lottery receipts, the Court of Appeals said Allen Superior Court Judge Charles F. Pratt "found that the extended physical separation, during which time no funds were ever commingled and each person lived as an individual, justified limiting (Vidrios Zepeda's) equitable interest in the lottery winnings."

Judges in "separate property" states such as Indiana may divide assets "in any manner that is just and reasonable, and that determination depends on the facts of the case," said Margaret Ryznar, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

"Often the court will divide marital assets in a proportion resembling 50-50, but there is room for departure depending on the court's judgment," she explained.

"Here, the departure is not surprising given that the husband and wife were living entirely separate lives by the time of the lotto winnings. Thus, while this is an interesting case to see how an Indiana court would divide lotto winnings in an estranged marriage, the result may differ in the next case depending on the facts of that marriage."

Matthew Williams, the Fort Wayne attorney who represented Vidrios Zepeda, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Indianapolis Star

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

51 comments. Last comment 8 years ago by One-Day.
Page 1 of 4
Marilyn222's avatar - thumb 350-286546.jpg
Denver
United States
Member #117679
October 12, 2011
552 Posts
Offline

A man who won $2 million in the Hoosier Lottery while separated from his wife has to give her only 2.5 percent of the winnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision upholds a 2012 Allen Superior Court ruling in which Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda, $10,000 each year for five years from the money he won on a scratch-off ticket in 2011.

The couple married in February 2002. They separated in March 2006, but neither filed for legal separation or divorce at the time.

"During the next six years," the court order said, "the couple spoke only two or three times, never commingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals."

In January 2011, Carrillo Perez won the $2 million. That March he filed for divorce. It was granted June 19, 2012.

After Carrillo Perez won the lottery, his estranged wife wanted a share of it, said Fort Wayne attorney Mark C. Chambers, who represented Carrillo Perez. He said Vidrios Zepeda initially asked for $1.4 million.

"The interesting thing for us was that the parties were separated physically, but they didn't file for divorce," Chambers said. "In the legal scheme, they were still married and the assets they accrued under standard divorce law would belong to both of them, and the presumption would be that they would be split 50-50.

"But this case was unique. When they split up, the wife took everything, and there was almost no contact for nearly six years until Jose won the lottery."

In ruling that Vidrios Zepeda was not entitled to an equal split of the marital assets, including the lottery receipts, the Court of Appeals said Allen Superior Court Judge Charles F. Pratt "found that the extended physical separation, during which time no funds were ever commingled and each person lived as an individual, justified limiting (Vidrios Zepeda's) equitable interest in the lottery winnings."

Judges in "separate property" states such as Indiana may divide assets "in any manner that is just and reasonable, and that determination depends on the facts of the case," said Margaret Ryznar, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

"Often the court will divide marital assets in a proportion resembling 50-50, but there is room for departure depending on the court's judgment," she explained.

"Here, the departure is not surprising given that the husband and wife were living entirely separate lives by the time of the lotto winnings. Thus, while this is an interesting case to see how an Indiana court would divide lotto winnings in an estranged marriage, the result may differ in the next case depending on the facts of that marriage."

Matthew Williams, the Fort Wayne attorney who represented Vidrios Zepeda, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

It's just right. Lol

White Bounce

    Avatar
    florida
    United States
    Member #76330
    June 24, 2009
    21 Posts
    Offline

    Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

    never take advise from someone unless you are willing to live their lifestyle

      THRIFTY's avatar - great seal_obverse.jpg
      100
      NEW YORK
      United States
      Member #90531
      April 29, 2010
      12741 Posts
      Offline

      It's just right. Lol

      Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

        THRIFTY's avatar - great seal_obverse.jpg
        100
        NEW YORK
        United States
        Member #90531
        April 29, 2010
        12741 Posts
        Offline

        Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

        She gets $50k from the lump sum. It looks like he took the cash value.

          Marilyn222's avatar - thumb 350-286546.jpg
          Denver
          United States
          Member #117679
          October 12, 2011
          552 Posts
          Offline

          Is it fair to say that marriage is a legal contract?

          Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

          White Bounce

            dallascowboyfan's avatar - chi
            Oklahoma
            United States
            Member #82389
            November 12, 2009
            6371 Posts
            Offline

            No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

            I Love Pink & Green 1908

              THRIFTY's avatar - great seal_obverse.jpg
              100
              NEW YORK
              United States
              Member #90531
              April 29, 2010
              12741 Posts
              Offline

              No contact for 6 years $50,000 is better than nothing with.

              I agree. $50k is a consolation prize.

                THRIFTY's avatar - great seal_obverse.jpg
                100
                NEW YORK
                United States
                Member #90531
                April 29, 2010
                12741 Posts
                Offline

                Yes, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. It is a binding agreement that includes prenuptial...hehehe

                It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

                  Avatar
                  * In hot pursuit of $ *
                  White Shores- California
                  United States
                  Member #136471
                  December 12, 2012
                  6799 Posts
                  Offline

                  It is the reason people are afraid of marriage in the USA.

                  Which people?- oh, you mean those who are afraid to commit to a relationship huh Thrifty?
                  The same bunch that string a woman or man along for years while reaping the benefits and when they tired of the so called " same old" they kick them to the curb?
                  Last month the drummer of Motley Crue whose 55 got married for the 3rd time to a 28 year old,  some folk who posted comments said " Stop marrying your daughters". Yikes.
                  Its quite possible that had this taken place in California- he would have had to fork over 50% of his winnings.

                    mrcraft's avatar - waveform
                    Los Angeles, California
                    United States
                    Member #149486
                    December 2, 2013
                    919 Posts
                    Offline

                    The ex-wife is a piece of work.  She initially asked for $1.4 million.  Isn't that everything plus more after taxes...

                      HaveABall's avatar - rocket

                      United States
                      Member #72446
                      March 18, 2009
                      1391 Posts
                      Offline

                      Does she get 2.5% of the cash value or of the Advertised value in this case being 2M ?. jeessh i would hope its the former. Unhappy

                      Magic 007, it appears to be the latter.  As the possibly fair $50,000 judgment award [that's $10,000 -- non-taxed again by Fed and State, paid five times annually to his wife during the time of win and claim) is 2.5% of the full advertised $2,000,000 annuitized jackpot win. 

                      I understand your confusion though, the article never stated, so we readers have no idea, if he received the annuitized value (paying lower annual taxes 30 times in a much lower tax bracket) or the cash value (receiving 1 payment and paying much higher tax bracket).  The article didn't indicate if either are U.S.A. Citizens, so his taxes [she doesn't pay taxes, since it's an judgment award he pays after he first pays fed and state taxers] could be lower if not.

                      Cheers! Cheers

                      Having several millions of dollars in my financial accounts means receiving several valuable services each day!

                      Disney

                        Avatar

                        United States
                        Member #141028
                        April 2, 2013
                        1481 Posts
                        Offline

                        GOLD DIGGER ALERT!!!

                        .....If your spouse's love is toxic to you, I reckon the  money should be equally toxic to you as well.

                        .....If your spouse is not getting the love, he/she should not be paying for loverboy/girl, banging you during their free time.

                        .....Trying to take all the money and more, gives a clue as to how you felt about the relationship.

                        .....These "stupid" judges should understand that no love equals no money.

                        .....Is there anybody on this forum that likes to see the community banging their spouse while they foot the bill?.

                        .....NO LOVE = NO MONEY!!!.

                        Seek and ye shall find -Matt. 7:7 ...Ask and ye shall receive -John 16:24 ...Give and it shall be given unto you -Luke 6:38 ...Be careful what you ask for!!! -Mypiemaster 1:1

                        Having Money Solves Problems That Not Having Money Creates Yes Nod ****John Carlton****

                          pickone4me's avatar - lightbulb
                          Wisconsin
                          United States
                          Member #104957
                          January 23, 2011
                          1153 Posts
                          Offline

                          Screwed over twice,  that's america for ya.

                            maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
                            Massachusetts
                            United States
                            Member #37432
                            April 14, 2006
                            2747 Posts
                            Offline

                            Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez should be happy he does not live in the wonderful state of Massachusetts. The progressive judges here would have given Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda (did they meet at a names contest? LOL) half the jp and a lifetime of alimony. 

                            That money's gone fo ever